Featured Church of Christ (and the like): evangelical or heretical?

I live betwixt two of the "hard core" CoC's, and if you aren't in the CoC, and also water baptized, you're either in a false religion, or hell-bound when you die.

 

There are other church of Christ besides the united CoC that do not take it to extremes.
MB

 

You have a difficult time understanding figures of speech.

You also make an incredible, superhuman leap. You automatically equate my view of baptism with condemning Baptists for getting their spiritual nourishment from the Word and prayer. In addition you accuse me of "constantly recalling the memory of their past baptism experience." That is not exactly what I said. If you are going to criticize my position, at least have the common courtesy to understand what I said.

The CoC has a very high view of baptism. It is a heretical view (as I said earlier in this thread), but still a high view. The Roman Catholics have a high view of baptism also. They believe it is necessary for salvation. Again, a heretical view. What is so enticing about heresy is that is often close to the truth. So close that those who lack discernment can be deceived into believing it is the truth.

The truth is that Baptism does play a significant role in the life of a believer. It identifies the individual as belonging to Christ. It symbolizes the individuals death to sin. It symbolizes the individuals future resurrection. It is the sign of the New Covenant. Our Baptist ancestors considered baptism so important that they died, at the hands of other Christians, defending it. But you refer to it as a "past baptism experience."

When I look back on my baptism I remember Christ's forgiveness of my sins. I remember that my old man was buried with Him in baptism, and raised in newness of life. I can point back and say, "See? That is when I became part of the New Covenant community!" Yes. I know I became part of the community by faith, but it was at my baptism that I testified of that. That is a great source of encouragement to me. I know it is a source of encouragement to others. Why do you have a problem with that?

 

Well, I don't know what "flavor" of CoC they are, but the two closest to me, then there are at least two more within 30 minutes of me, who believe the exact thing. They are "CoC or bust". I even have heard them preaching on the radio(not the ones around me, but other CoC's, like in Ohio), and they will go so far as to say, "As Apostle Paul wrote to the Church of Christ at Corinth, or Rome, Ephesus", etc. They actually believe they started way back then, and are ignorant of the fact that they once were called "Campbellites". :tonofbricks:

 

To be quite honest; I was saved May 24th, 2007, and wasn't baptized until Jume 10th, 2007. Eventhough if I had died before being baptized, I was blood bought and heaven bound, I wasn't completely satisified until they laid me in my "liquid grave", and brought me forth out of it. It is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and that we are now in accord with Him, seeing that it was He who saved us, and not the water.

 

I read it some time ago, as I recall I appreciated his view but disagreed primarily over his view of separation. While his research is laudable his result isn't helpful. Murray seems to miss the influence of American (or even British) Fundamentalism in crafting an evangelical ethos and is too confined in his solutions. Anyhoo...I'm more appreciative of guys like Marsden and Hunter in this kind of discussion. (yes, I just showed my hand a bit.)

Southeast is really intriguing as they keep a baptistry filled and ready to go because of their view of baptism. And yet they are a massive church.

Dave's statement is strange, it lacks qualification so I'd have to hear the entire sermon to understand the context.

However, it does show a bit of what I was speaking about. CoC (Southeast is, I believe, independent Christian or a Christian Church...these are different from CoC) usually believe that faith is part A of salvation and baptism part B. I disagree with them. I give them a scenario, a woman attends a CoC meeting and prays to receive Christ in faith. As she steps out of her pew (all they ever have is pews) an airplane crashes through the ceiling and kills her and everyone sitting in the back (backrow Christians them all.) Was she saved? Almost all CoC folks would say no. She hadn't sealed her salvation by being baptized.

Listen, I don't agree with them. But I can't not call them evangelical. I certainly can't call them heretics.

They don't want much to do with me (even my wife's relatives who are CoC are polite but worry about my salvation...even though I've run circles around them theologically when we discuss these things.) However, I do see a historical basis for their view in the earliest churches and can understand how they come to it. I'm not defending their brand of church, I'm just saying I can't call them heretics.

Heresy is too an important a word to toss around liberally like folks do on this board.

Well again, I think extremes are extremely vexing.

Let me answer GT and I'll post up what I know. Its all kinds of Texas screwy.

 

Maybe the bigger issue is whether CoC want to be considered evangelical.

Their penchant desire for drastic separation (even going to different liquor stores to avoid saying hello to each other) might well be a sign that they should be excluded.

Yeah, I just think it is part A and part B of salvation. They see them as intrinsically linked.

Baptists believe this too (usually) but it is nuanced differently. Holy Spirit vs water baptism. (Which I think is correct.)

Ultimately my soteriology begins with faith in Jesus as the justifying act no matter what practices or beliefs follow. Jesus calls us first to faith and then obedience. Jesus doesn't call us to right knowledge then faith.

Well your first mistake is using Latin to understand a CoC ...they don't do Latin.

Soteriology is a tough issue because it is so diverse once you get past faith in Jesus.

Episcopal, presbyterian, methodist, baptist, pentecostal, etc etc etc all have different views of the workings of salvation once you get beyond faith in Christ. I just think generosity should be the watchword here.

Do we really want a synergist and a monergist running around yelling "heretic!" at each other? Even when they are basically within the same camp on tons of other stuff?

Anyhoo...the way they have explained the role of baptism is salvation in that it is part B of a two part process. Faith is part A, you have faith in Jesus Christ, and part B is you are baptized for the washing away of your sins. If you haven't had your sins washed you aren't saved. Is this my view? Of course not. It is an erroneous view of the NT position imho. Can I call them heretical? Nope.

My questions were meant to evoke reflection as to the nature of evangelicalism (which is as slip-shod as they come in terms of affiliation and identity) and the nature of diversity among those who include themselves in the evangelical camp.

I think it's a good discussion. My life experience has led me to desire a more generous Christianity in terms of how we associate with each other. After years of watching people bicker, scream, and holler about who is and isn't _________ (insert pointless label) I got tired of it and found that often we do this because we are simply speaking past each other. CoC are quirky folks and I've been told to my face by more than a few that I'll spend all my days in eternal damnation for my view of baptism. I disagree with them on this and other things. However, I can still be generous.

 

Don't spend to much time or energy on it...regardless the historical rivalries which I'm sure are true, and which I'm sure still have an effect...I'm simply saying that in my circles, the Baptists I interact with have no historical grudge, only a theological disagreement that would prevent us from joining with CoC for any kind of evangelistic outreach or biblical Education endeavor.

 

Okay, so Why do Baptists and Church of Christ folks not get along...historically?

Well back in the late 1800s (and through the early part of the 1900s) mostly in the southwest areas (Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, and Louisiana) there were lots of Baptist churches all over. You had FBC ________ that was one of the more prominent churches in the area. Well, the CoC folks started growing and began sending out ministers (they don't call them pastors) to various towns to spread their theology.

Generally what would happen is a guy and his family would show up and start a Bible study in his home in a quiet way. Now these are usually isolated, rural communities where news travels about half the speed of smell. Anyhoo, they would start a Bible study and it would grow to be able 40 - 50 people. Then they would go to the local Baptist church and join the church over several Sundays. Everybody would be thrilled because the church was growing.

Now the local Baptist church is important here because it had three things they knew would work to their advantage: 1) a physical building, 2) limited communication with other churches, 3) autonomy.

Well after about two or three months this little group of new folks to the local Baptist church would have grown in size because, man, there was one or two fellas that were pretty good Sunday School teachers and they taught from the Bible. Well they also taught the baptism thing too. So as soon as the group had a 50% plus 1 majority (these are small churches mind you) they would call a special business meeting, fire the pastor, change the name of the church, and vote in a new minister.

Anybody who disagreed with them, their doctrine, or the way they handled things would be disfellowshipped and run out of the new Church of Christ.

And this happened across the southwest region for about three or four decades. Made Baptist folk madder than hornets and it lasts through until today, but most people don't know why they're mad at CoC people. This is why, when you drive around rural towns in these states, and you find an old Church of Christ building it looks a whole lot like an old Baptist building (red brick, white columns, pews in the sanctuary.)

So there, you've wasted a perfectly good five minutes reading this. I've sources for all this data if you need it. But I think we can all agree its a pretty low-down and dirty way to do church...which still happens today in some ways.

 

I voted not sure for I do not think neither of the other apply I just think they are deceived.

For I believe the water baptism of Jesus was prophetic of his true baptism by which we could be given the Holy Spirit unto belief.

I think the best example we have for water baptism in the NT is the Ethiopian eunuch.

What did he understand and why did he want to be baptized in water?

Was it that he wanted to associate himself with this one who had died for him and had his days prolonged?

Did he understand that through the prolonged days, of the one who had died for sin, that he had a good conscience toward God and that his being baptized in water would show that?

 

You sound as if this has happened to your church.
MB

 

Nope, just relating the history.

 

thank you!!!!!!!!

 

That is a wonderful testimony.

 

Perhaps you have a point. However, taking everthing you have to say about baptism and trying to distill your theology is not an easy task.

For example:

So if you feel that I'm just plain old mean or English language challanged kindly accept my deepest appology.

Question: How often (as in one, twice or more times per day) do you look back at your Baptism?

 

It's an act of profession:

Unto what then were ye Baptized?

"II. BAPTIZED UNTO MOSES (1 Corinthians 10:12)
This bit of history of the Hebrews and of the Exodus gives us a clue as to the meaning of what it means to be baptized "unto" someone or some thing. The Hebrews had been living and working "unto" their Egyptian taskmasters. They labored at making bricks with a view to pleasing these masters and thus doing the bidding of Pharaoh. The Red Sea put a difference in their view of the One to be heeded. It had separated, or marked the death of, themselves to Egypt, and the Egyptians to them. Now they had a new leader, Moses. Their being baptized "unto Moses," then meant that no longer were they to heed the voices of the masters in Egypt, but the voice of a new Master (God) whose spokesman was Moses.

III. BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST (Romans 6:3)
We are taught that we are baptized into (same word: "unto") Jesus Christ. It is not a matter of location or place, so that baptism puts us literally into Christ. This is no more true than that "baptized unto Moses" put the Hebrews into Moses. It means that baptism (like the Red Sea crossing) drew a line between former masters and the the present leader or master. Baptism declares that we have died to the world. Being dead to it we cannot heed the voice of its god (Satan) or its leaders (taskmasters). We have a new Master (Christ), and are baptized "unto" Him. With a view to heeding Him and no other, we declare (show) our death to the world and our resurrection (new life) unto God. He is our new Master, and we heed the voice of Him Who is our Head, Christ."

 

Your apology is not needed, but I appreciate the offer.

I am reminded of the signicance of my baptism often. Attempting to pigeon-hole me as to how many times per day I look back at my baptism is not a serious question. The thing that my baptism signifies is both a present and future reality for the reasons I gave in my last post which you have quoted.

My question still stands. Why does this bother you?

 

It is that too.

 

We have had a few from the CoC join the board and post in the Other Religions Forum, where I spend a great deal of my time.

When I was saved, it was through an interdenominational group that worked on the campuses of universities. They never stressed the importance of local churches or baptism. After salvation, and graduation I worked in a rural area where there was no opportunity to go to a local church of any kind. I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved.

I put the question this CoC member: "If I had died within that two year period, would I have gone to heaven?" IOW, do you consider me saved?
He answered that he didn't consider me saved then, nor does he now.

They believe that baptism is an integral part of their salvation. Without baptism one cannot be saved. Furthermore, I wasn't saved because I wasn't baptized by a CoC pastor. The baptizer has to be the right person. Thus in their eyes, because I haven't been baptized by their cult I am still not saved.

Theirs is a religion of works, which cannot save. If one gets saved it is in spite of the doctrine taught, not because of it. Putting one's trust in baptism cannot save. Baptismal regeneration in the CoC is just as much heresy as it is in the RCC.